SMARTening motorways

[Lutin]

38 died how? Absolutely meaningless.

Quite possibly, especially with deaths prior to the introduction of "smart" motorway status.

However

In the five years before the road was converted into a smart motorway there were just 72 near misses. In the five years after, there were 1,485.

Is, I think, rather disturbing.

[slowsider]

Correlation is not causation, though. I guess you would need to compare that fatality figure with non-smart m/ways with similar traffic levels over the same period.

[Horse]

However

In the five years before the road was converted into a smart motorway there were just 72 near misses. In the five years after, there were 1,485.

Is, I think, rather disturbing.

Again, how were they identified and logged?

Try to comparisons with dual carriageways where there's no monitoring of any kind and the police don't always notify HE of what's going on*.

* I went on a ride out with HE traffic officers. We were overtaken, on a motorway, by three police vehicles. A few miles later we found them dealing with a lane 3 RTC. Police hadn't notified HE.

[cheb]

HE? What's that? Highways Egency?

[Horse]

Highways Angland

They were sort of privatised a few years ago, so changed name.

Played havoc with the Highways Agency Information Line ...

[The Spin Doctor]

Again, how were they identified and logged?

It's a reasonable question...

...but just because you can ask reasonable questions doesn't mean that you should try to dismiss the issue.

Correlation is not causation, though. I guess you would need to compare that fatality figure with non-smart m/ways with similar traffic levels over the same period.

But 'before and after' figures are valid. As soon as you open up the hard shoulder as a running lane, you increase the capacity and that changes the dynamics of the traffic flow, and if the premise that the smart motorway is safer because of the extra capacity, then you should see fewer crashes.

According to the figures I've seen the fatality rate on the stretches that have been turned into 'smart' motorways has fallen very slightly compared to the same stretch before modification. Two comments; firstly, the law of small numbers applies - if you're counting very small numbers (and we are) then you need a long TIME baseline to see if there are significant differences. Secondly if the traffic flow remained much the same but was distributed over more lanes and traffic flow was better managed during times of congestion, I would have hoped to see a rather more positive result than "slightly better".

[slowsider]

Again, how were they identified and logged?

It's a reasonable question...

...but just because you can ask reasonable questions doesn't mean that you should try to dismiss the issue.

Correlation is not causation, though. I guess you would need to compare that fatality figure with non-smart m/ways with similar traffic levels over the same period.

But 'before and after' figures are valid. As soon as you open up the hard shoulder as a running lane, you increase the capacity and that changes the dynamics of the traffic flow, and if the premise that the smart motorway is safer because of the extra capacity, then you should see fewer crashes.

According to the figures I've seen the fatality rate on the stretches that have been turned into 'smart' motorways has fallen very slightly compared to the same stretch before modification. Two comments; firstly, the law of small numbers applies - if you're counting very small numbers (and we are) then you need a long TIME baseline to see if there are significant differences. Secondly if the traffic flow remained much the same but was distributed over more lanes and traffic flow was better managed during times of congestion, I would have hoped to see a rather more positive result than "slightly better".

Before and after - yes, as long as nothing else changes at the same time. Identifying and isolating confounding variables would be needed to compare apples with apples.

If traffic flow stayed much the same, you wouldn't need to open up the h/s as a running lane. If projected traffic increases are the driving factor, then opening up the extra lane doesn't make it safer per se, but attempts to maintain the current safety level.

[Horse]

Again, how were they identified and logged?

It's a reasonable question...

...but just because you can ask reasonable questions doesn't mean that you should try to dismiss the issue.

I'm not completely dismissing it, instead pointing out that, without context, it's meaningless.

One of the 'safest' stretches of motorway is M4 J14-15. Also the scene of one of the UK's worst crashes.

The A34 near Newbury is renowned for crashes. Look into what some fatals are:
- hgv driver choosing music on his phone, into the back of static traffic, multiple fatalities
- drunk driver over the central res
- tired driver, late at night, into a lay-by (probably saw the other vehicle and thought that was the road), two dead in the van
- Piaggio trike rider, loss of control

All totally different, but a common (even then, the length of road being considered varies) stretch of road.

A lot of the headlines and quotes say smart motorways are 'dangerous roads'. Is that really a good description?

[The Spin Doctor]

If traffic flow stayed much the same, you wouldn't need to open up the h/s as a running lane. If projected traffic increases are the driving factor, then opening up the extra lane doesn't make it safer per se, but attempts to maintain the current safety level.

The rationale for opening up the extra lane is they are already congested, and that congestion causes crashes. So reducing congestion via the extra capacity should reduce crashes.

[The Spin Doctor]

I'm not completely dismissing it, instead pointing out that, without context, it's meaningless.

One of the 'safest' stretches of motorway is M4 J14-15. Also the scene of one of the UK's worst crashes.

Which is one of the reasons you need long baselines, to allow for 'regression to the mean', to avoid statistical blips.

The A34 near Newbury is renowned for crashes. Look into what some fatals are:
- hgv driver choosing music on his phone, into the back of static traffic, multiple fatalities
- drunk driver over the central res
- tired driver, late at night, into a lay-by (probably saw the other vehicle and thought that was the road), two dead in the van
- Piaggio trike rider, loss of control

All totally different, but a common (even then, the length of road being considered varies) stretch of road.

Given that mechanical failures are relatively rare and Acts of God (the spanner falling from a just-serviced helicopter, through the open sun roof of a car and knocking the driver out on the A2 near Rochester that I first mentioned a couple of decades ago) are even rarer, human error of one sort or another will be at the root of the vast majority of accidents.

A lot of the headlines and quotes say smart motorways are 'dangerous roads'. Is that really a good description?

Well, they don't seem to be the improvement we were told they would be.

And I'd ask if - given the lack of stopped vehicle detection over most of the network - they are actually 'smart'?

[Horse]

Well, they don't seem to be the improvement we were told they would be.

TBH I don't know what was promised and how much of that has been delivered.

Also, I don't know whether improvements in air quality were intended or promised.

And I'd ask if - given the lack of stopped vehicle detection over most of the network - they are actually 'smart'?

See the link I posted. As you know, the technology may take time and have a few false starts along the way.

Wiki says:
A smart motorway (formerly managed motorway and active traffic management), also known in Scotland as an intelligent transport system, is a section of motorway that uses active traffic management (ATM) techniques

[Horse]

I had a quick look for relative casualty rates by 'type' (my terminology).

This
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... n-plan.pdf

Includes a 'hazard assessment'.

1611666152573_D3M MM-ALR.png (137.75 KiB) Viewed 1228 times

Note 2012 info for MM-ALR.

And, I haven't read it to find out where the rest went or how it relates to incidents.

Edit: "ALR was expected to reduce overall level of risk by 20%"

[iansoady]

Interesting that the main reduction shown is for "individual vehicle driving too fast" followed by "tailgating" and "rapid change of general vehice speed". I suppose both are reduced by speed monitoring and the perception that fines will be imposed.

As always though, one has to wonder how the data was arrived at.......

[Horse]

It's not data, I think it's an assessment of anticipated gains. As Spin said, you need several years' actual data to find out whether the assessment (guess?) was anywhere near correct.

Also, things don't stay constant. I was intrigued that road maintenance was roughly the same.

However, if it's for actual ALR rather than dynamic HS, then the techniques are dramatically different.
- On a 'normal' (ie D3+HS, as it's described) the crew would work, for a lane 1 closure, from the HS. - ALR obviously doesn't have one, but does have 'VSS' ie Red X etc. Also, automatic barrier closure of lanes is being introduced. Newer conversions have LED signs instead of crews walking out metal plate signs on the nearside (10 years ago they would have been walking signs to the centre res too).

[Cousin Jack]

I have fairly limited experience of using smart m'ways, but my anecdotal 'evidence' is that regular users (eg M1 south of J13 in the rush hour) cope OK, most of them recognize the signs, and act accordingly. However throw a smart m'way at some people who don't use m'ways much (eg M4, J16-J17) and anything can happen! They ignore lane closed signs, they get an attack of road rage if anyone uses the inside lane when it is ALR, and they are a danger to themselves and anyone near them. Driver education on smart m'way driving is badly needed.

Personally, they make me feel uncomfortable.

[Horse]

Driver education on smart m'way driving is badly needed.

Bring back "This ... is a public information film", said in best BBC voice.



"Be smart, be safe - don't shit yourself". Ah, the police don't give advice like that anymore!

Think once ...

[The Spin Doctor]

We were told they would all have stopped vehicle detection systems in place - 90% haven't.

The trial also had refuges every 600 metres apart on the M42, but after the wider role out, in some cases this distance increased to 2.5 miles. Highways England claims emergency refuge areas are currently "a maximum of 1.5 miles apart".

When it takes 14 minutes for someone to spot a stationary vehicle on CCTV, that's hardly 'smart' working.

[Horse]

We were told they would all have stopped vehicle detection systems in place - 90% haven't.

TBH I don't know what was promised

See the link I posted. As you know, the technology may take time and have a few false starts along the way.

I'm pretty sure that I either PM or emailed you about this a while ago.

The trial also had refuges every 600 metres apart on the M42

FWIW that stretch was, when built, the most highly monitored section of road in the world. I can only presume that part of that monitoring was used to determine how often (IIRC all ERAs have detection loops and cameras) they were used and why and that was used to guide construction decisions.

When it takes 14 minutes for someone to spot a stationary vehicle on CCTV, that's hardly 'smart' working.

Presumably that excludes any instances where someone phones in and gives the location?

As was said on the TRC thread, it's worth everyone knowing that police consider it a 999 call.

[The Spin Doctor]

FWIW that stretch was, when built, the most highly monitored section of road in the world. I can only presume that part of that monitoring was used to determine how often (IIRC all ERAs have detection loops and cameras) they were used and why and that was used to guide construction decisions.

But... and I've said this before... the high level of monitoring AND the relative closeness of the refuges were compromised with the broader roll-out, whilst making safety claims based on the trial.

When it takes 14 minutes for someone to spot a stationary vehicle on CCTV, that's hardly 'smart' working.

Presumably that excludes any instances where someone phones in and gives the location?

As was said on the TRC thread, it's worth everyone knowing that police consider it a 999 call.

In quite a few instances, cars have been hit whilst call handlers have been talking to the driver who had stopped.

Look, NO road is perfectly safe.

But one of the features of the motorway system that MADE it safer than other roads WAS the hard shoulder.

Removing it HAS compromised the safety feature that made them different. And there's no way you can argue around that.

[Lutin]

No new smart motorways without additional safety measures

No more smart motorways without hard shoulders will be able to open without additional safety measures in place, the government has said.

It said any new "all lane running" roads would need radar technology installed first to detect stopped cars.

Smart motorways use technology and other measures to cut traffic, such as opening the hard shoulder.

But there are fears about their safety after several fatal accidents involving stationary cars being hit from behind.

In a written statement to Parliament, Transport Secretary Gran Shapps said that for every hundred million miles driven there were fewer deaths on all-lane motorways than conventional ones.

But, he added: "We are determined to do all we can to help drivers feel safer and be safer on our roads - all our roads."

He said Highways England would now accelerate the introduction of a number of safety measures set out last year.